Some seem to suggest that the existence of social issues demonstrates that God either does not care about the human experience's well-being, or is incapable of managing the human experience, and, therefore, is not the omniscient, omnipotent and supremely benevolent creator that the Bible and science's observations seem to suggest.
Preventing And Eliminating Social Issues
God seems Biblically-described as both willing and able to prevent and/or eliminate evil, but also interested in privileging humans with a certain amount of self-determination. Science's findings seem to substantiate the Bible's apparent suggestion that social issues result from the misuse of self-determination to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and from the resulting behavior that might conflict with God's human experience design, and thereby cause harm.
The Bible seems to suggest that God has balanced (a) opportunity to voluntarily accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and (b) the elimination of social issues. However, some seem to criticize God regardless of strategy:
-
When God warns regarding behavior that will cause human suffering, God seems to be criticized as being too restrictive.
-
When God allows humans to experience firsthand the harm that results from behavior that rejects God's guidance, God seems to be criticized for being too lenient, uncaring about human suffering, or non-existent.
-
When God exemplifies the benefit of accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority via a human [Abraham] with apparently strong relationship with and guidance by God (or perhaps with and by good, even prior to knowing God well), and his descendants [Israel], God seems to be accused of favoritism.
-
When God directs avoidance of those who reject God as primary relationship and sovereign authority in order to avoid behavior that causes social issues, God seems to be accused of advocating elitism and prejudice.
-
When God eliminates those who reject God's guidance and cause social issues, even when "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and ... every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", God seems to be criticized as being too punitive, and/or vindictive.
If God is criticized regardless of approach regarding humanly-caused problems, perhaps such criticism might not be based upon any valid shortcoming on God's part and might indicate insufficient value of the apparent privilege of human self-determination and/or insufficient recognition of human self-determination's responsibilities.
The Flood
To me, the Bible seems to suggest that:
-
God had given humans a problem-free human experience, apparently, including the privilege of a range of self-determination that, although apparently limited, seems to have been and still be the most advanced of all Earth-based forms of existence.
-
Humans misused that self-determination to effect replacement of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority with "the serpent" in Genesis 3, and with self in Genesis 4, and to ignore God's apparent instructions.
-
Rather than eliminate those that misused their self-determination power to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and harm the human experience and perhaps reality beyond the human experience, God seems described in both Genesis 3 and Genesis 4 as exhibiting patience and understanding by allowing erring humans further opportunity to restore God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.
-
Apparently, after a number of generations apparently listed in Genesis 5, Genesis 6 seems to suggest that, except for one person, Noah, the outcome of God's patience and understanding toward replacement of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority was "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually".
To me, apparently due to the apparent human suffering caused by human malevolence, God seems criticized as either malevolently in accord with such suffering, unconcerned about the suffering, incapable of eliminating malevolence, or non-existent. Might you intend to suggest that God should have left the Genesis 6:5 level of malevolence in place?
Response to: https://twitter.com/DAVE24_7/status/709395319457316865
1) What might you mean by "making the Universe Mysterious"?
2) To me, making creatures capable of living on all planets seems as unnecessary as making creatures capable of eating everything on earth. The Bible seems to suggest that God created humanity to live on Earth, with all the resources it needs for excellent human experience. Secular perspective seems to agree.
Although I haven't given any previous thought to why other humanly-observed planets exist and don't claim to know why, one reasonable possibility might be to achieve goals other than directly supporting life forms, such as maintaining orbital balances.
3) To me, the Bible seems to suggest that God administrates God/human relationships individually, and that individual humans (a) have chosen a point of reference other than God to be primary relationship and sovereign authority, (b) have ignored God's administration of the human experience, and (c) have taught others to do likewise. The apparently adverse outcomes of those behaviors seem to have been warned about by God, and experienced by humanity.
To me, the Bible's existence seems to result from extent to which (a) humanity has sought solutions for these adverse outcomes, (b) the solution is for individuals to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, (c) one of God's measures for helping humanity understand the solution has been to allow an individual who implemented the solution (Abraham) to start a culture based upon the solution (Israel), and apparently to have their God/human relationship experience recorded for future reference.
To me, the Bible seems to suggest that as individuals accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, quality of human experience improves. However the improvement seems to result from humans ceasing to ignore God's individual human experience management, rather than from God only beginning to manage individual human experience .
4) To me, the Bible seems to suggest that, when God promises or warns, pronouncement is certain, rather than misleading. However, the nature of "heaven" and "hell" seems unclearly depicted in the Bible, and therefore, I offer little if any insight thereregarding.
To me, the primary incentive for accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority seems to be to achieve optimal human experience. The issue of afterlife experience seems at most Biblically-suggested to be the sole purview of God, and based upon the apparently same key to optimal human experience: individuals' quality of God/human relationship.
5) To me, the Bible seems to suggest that the issue of accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority might not be about ego, but rather about the apparently quality of individuals' impact upon reality. The SIDP home page essay (http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html) explains further.
To me, science seems to suggest that God's management of the rest of the (at least humanly-observed) universe seems to be in fine order.
6) To me, The Bible seems to suggest that God allows a certain measure of "free will" with regard to accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, including with regard to differences in relationship with God. Genesis 4 seems to suggest, that if accepted, no such differences would result in conflict. Numbers 12 seems to clearly illustrate God getting directly involved in such difference in related perspective. These two examples, of probably many Biblical examples of the apparent answer to your concern, seem to illustrate the apparent value of the Bible, apparently posted as concern #3.
7) To me, Genesis 1 seems to suggest that God created sufficient resources for every aspect of the human experience. I seem to have heard recently that, currently, enough food exists to feed 2.5x Earth's current population. Lack of resource seems most logically-suggested to result from attempt to rely on human administration of the human experience, rather than on God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.
Ethics/Moral Standard
Response to: https://twitter.com/AtheistParticle/status/730105614991396865
To me, the issue seems to be how one determines what is right without a higher-than-human authority. There seems to exist no reasoned basis upon which to construct an ethics/moral standard aside from a higher-than-human authority. http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html, "No Authoritative Basis For Ethical Standard" explains further. I welcome your thoughts, including to the contrary.
Response to: https://twitter.com/AveriTheAtheist/status/730174695820103681
I don't claim to know why God is not described as immediately killing Pharaoh upon Pharaoh's refusal, rather than effecting the apparently Biblically-suggested series of events. However, to me, Exodus 1 seems to suggest Pharaoh taking a similar approach to God's blessing upon the Hebrews, and Exodus 14 seems to suggest that Pharaoh was eventually killed.
Attributing Social Issues Management
The Bible seems to suggest that God established a problem-free human experience and that humans deteriorate human experience quality when they attempt to enhance it by replacing God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. This trend seems Biblically-suggested to exist among those who seem to suggest behaving on God's behalf (
Numbers 12).
